~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

Women Deacons?

To, no doubt, the unalloyed pleasure of those who like to criticise or praise him, Pope Francis has opined on the question of Female Deacons in the Roman Catholic Church. That is another bone for him and his church to gnaw away at. Naturally, given some of those who welcome the idea, those who don’t see it as the thin end of the wedge for female ordination. It is a shame if the hermeneutic of suspicion casts a cloud over the question of deaconesses, as there is plenty of evidence for their existence in the early Church.

We know from some of the critics of the Church that it attracted a lot of women into it – the early heretic Celsus, criticised it for attracting only “the silly and the mean and the stupid, with women and children.” It should not surprise us that women were powerfully drawn to a faith which disallowed the exposure of female infants on the hillside to die, and which forbade abortion. As we see from Acts and Paul’s letters, women often hosted house churches and were active in the church – in this the early Church reflected Jesus’ own practice. Those who keep telling us that his earthly ministry was conditioned by the contemporary culture (with the sub-text that ours should be too) forget how counter-cultural this was.

It was the women who stayed with Jesus in numbers even at the foot of the Cross; it was to a woman that he first appeared at the Resurrection; and we know that women continued to be active in the very early missions. The list includes Priscilla, Chloe, Lydia, Apphia, Nympha, the mother of John Mark, and possibly (depending on how one reads it) the “elect lady” of John’s second epistle. As for what they did, Celment of Alexandria gives us this insight, telling us that disciples were accompanied on their missionary journeys by women who were not marriage partners, but colleagues:

that they might be their fellow ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any scandal being aroused. We also know the directions about women deacons which are given by the noble Paul in his letter to Timothy.

Was this the role played by Junia and others mentioned by Paul in Romans 16? She is described as being of ‘note among the Apostles’. Chrysostom wrote: “Oh, how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should even be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle.” Later attempts to claim this person was a man called ‘Junias’ encounter a slight problem – such a name is unknown in Roman times. Phoebe is called a ‘prostasis’ or ‘overseer’ – the Greek word is διάκονον – from which our modern ‘deacon’ comes. Origen, referring to 1 Timothy 3:11 commented:

This text teaches with the authority of the Apostle that even women are instituted deacons in the Church. This is the function which was exercised in the church of Cenchreae by Phoebe, who was the object of high praise and recommendation by Paul . . . And thus this text teaches at the same time two things: that there are, as we have already said, women deacons in the Church, and that women, who by their good works deserve to be praised by the Apostle, ought to be accepted in the diaconate.

We know that they could visit believing women in pagan households where a male deacon would be unacceptable, as well as visiting the sick, bathing those recovering from illness, and ministering to the needy. Women Deacons also assisted in the baptism of women, anointing them with oil and giving them instruction in purity and holiness – in an era when baptism was usually by full immersion, it would hardly have been decent for women to have been accompanied into the water by a male. Canon 15 of Chalcedon made it clear that no woman under the age of 40 could be deacon, and that the role had to be given up on marriage.

So, steering away from the thorny issue of female ordination, there is good evidence that women functioned as deacons in the early Church (and further reading can be found here. I fear, of course, that this will all be ignored and some will focus solely in the issue of women priests – it would be a shame, not least because the evidence there from history is far less clear. But I suppose there will always be those who prefer the later tradition of their own church to the testimony of the early Church. Any how, that’s my historical excursus.

A very interesting excursion, I think. And what was said in the early church, is something we in the Protestant world have often remarked. One of the strengths of the married clergy is the Pastor’s wife. I have no interest in debating a married priesthood, either, but clearly, women are far better at dealing with women, and often men, as well. I would be wise for a church, any church, to find a way to incorporate women into some method of serving its members.

I’m not sure the feminists who want this change would truly want the deaconesses of old”s role; too servile and beneath them. They are looking for ordination which is impossible. The Church already evaluated this in a 5 year study so I am not sure what more the Church of Francis needs to do in this regard.

“In 2002, the International Theological Commission concluded a five-year study of the question of women deacons, initiated at the request of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

“The 42,679 word document concludes that 1) deaconesses in the early Church were not participating in some form of holy orders, 2) nor were they even equivalent to deacons. But, of course, many of those pushing for deaconesses today are doing so for the sole purpose of having leverage for the ordination of women to the priesthood.”

42,679 words? And we wonder why nobody reads anything but the executive summary anymore. If you can’t make the case, for or against in ten thousand, it’s not worth making. And if you want to be effective, make it on one page.

Well since we don’t need them to baptize grown women in the nude anymore and we do not need them to accompany a priest to the home of women, as society demanded in their day, I am not sure what role they would have or if anyone would want it.

That one cuts both ways. Are you really saying you can’t see any role for women deacons given the way our society has changed? What would stop them from giving a homily, or being extraordinary Eucharistic ministers?

It has been the tradition ever since the Apostles were given the mandate to go and to preach to all nations etc. Dispensations have been given to religious orders outside of Mass. But it is not against women: men can’t do this either except for the Deacon and the Deaconess was not simply a female Deacon. She was a servant as is deacon but non-ordained.

Did you follow the link to the Canons of Chalcedon, which state that women under the age of 40 could not be ‘ordained’ as Deacons? The Apostolic Constitutions (Book 8 section 20) also has a form of service for the ordination of a deacon.

I fear the only way out of this is the logic chopping of the pieces you cited – and say not only does ‘deacon’ not mean ‘deacon’ but ordination does not mean ‘ordination’, which is what the 1 Peter site is reduced to. Admitting we don’t know too much, he commits himself to the sweeping statement that ordination was not the same as ordination – offering not the slightest evidence. You know, if I were not a kindly soul, I’d think all this showed male desperation to avoid evidence men can’t deal with – but of course, I am sure they are simply misguided 🙂 xx

Are the rites for men and women the same? The words are different and the actions different. Why? This was straigtened out in the 19th Canon of the Council of Nicea. It obviously must have been a problem as women were wondering why they could not do what a Deacon could do. It was decided much to your chagrin and other feminist of the today. We had a modern discussion (for 5 years) that came to the same conclusion. Sorry you don’t like it but then who cares if a non-Catholic doesn’t like it? Its simply the way it is.

I provided a source, which showed they are. Chalcedon comes after Nicaea, as does the Eulogium of St Mark. So the chagrin is yours I fear. A discussion among Catholics which came down in favour of the tradition of your church since the Middle Ages, well, I never 🙂 xx

No it did not. I read both sides at the same time and they differed. As to what those differences entailed is hard for us to gauge at this juncture but I bet it wasn’t so hard for those at Nicea to decipher. Nice was far before the Middle Ages and even if it were . . . is that not a long tradition. What do you have against the Middle Ages. Are we so much brighter and holier now? Were not some of the saints of that era the best the Church has offered? You have a lot of deep seated hatred for certain things . . . and a love of all things modern unless you can find an excuse in some muddied bit of history that agrees with your modern ideas.

What you are really left with is that an era when there were serioous arguments about whether women were human, took a certain view on this issue, not one the early church took, and you are arguing that this culturally conditioned decision is valid for all time.

As I say, what your church does is up to it, but the more I study the arguments in my own church, the less convincing do I find any of the arguments from medieval tradition.

No, but like you they claim to go back to the beginning and their claim to have changed nothing is rather more impressive – as unlike your own branch of the church, they did not change practice here. As so often, the Orthodox bear witness to a faithful adherence to tradition unchanged.

My point stands. Either male deacons were not ordained, or both sexes were. The evidence is both were – why even have a rie of ordination for female deacons if they werent ‘ordained’ Honestly, it is like listening to the transgender advocates saying a man is what they want it to mean. Ordination means ordination, and a man is a man – the moment one has to resort to redefining words, you’re on the slope to Clintonville it depends what ‘it’ means,

In the first place, you are being anachronistic by applying a definition of sacramental that the early church did not know. In the second, on the definition of sacramental then current, both rites are sacramental.

It did but without such words. Sacramentals, such as relics of the saints were cared for and venerated for some time. Consecration of Churches were sacramental blessings as were the blessings of homes and people and farms and livestock and our food that we eat at every meal.

Deacons were ordained to assist the priest and as such they are part of the ordained clergy. Deaconesses were blessed in a rite (called ordination at the time) to attend to the women of the parish where it would not be proper for the priest or deacon to do so. Deacons could read the Gospels and give a homily. Deaconesses could not. There is the distinction. The Deacon is related to the priesthood . . . the Deaconess is given the ability to act in the name of the Church in ministering to women in the name of the Church. Find me an example where the Deaconess acted as a Deacon does. There are none.

Yes, but that was then, when there was a separation of duties according to sex, and this is now, so I see no reason why you cold not have a female diaconate doing what the men so. Are you really saying that women can’t read the Gospel or give a homily? There is now no reason to suppose owmen can’t do these things. We don’t need women deacons to do what they did in first thousand years, but what’s the argument against them doing what the next thousand needs – except that since the Middle Ages it wasn’t so? Pardon me if I don’t accept that decades when men argued over whether women were actually human set any lasting standard 🙂 xx

Yes I am saying that women can’t read the Gospel or give a homily in Mass. Sorry that makes you uncomfortable. But it is wrong and it won’t happen.

Be as snarky as you like concerning the Bride of Christ and Her constant diligence to guard the teaching and traditions of the faith; especially in regards to the Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We have already created indults that have weakened this distinction. Any more movement in that direction would break down the distinction between the ordained ministry and the ministry of the non-ordained.

Of course a devoted feminist would say such. If you have a Priest (acting in personna Christi) what possible reason would you have to bringing a woman into the sanctuary to read and preach a homily on the gospel?

You simply have a problem with obedience. Our Church still enforces the teachings and the traditions and we are supposed to be obedient the Church as we would to Christ Himself. If you don’t like it, tough. There is always the Anglican church or thousands of others.

I’ve said nothing about the person of the Pope. I have compained about the ambiguity and the lack of clarity of the Pope. Big difference.

The problem I have is one common to many people who look at a church struggling to emerge from centuries of embattlement, and it is one of despairing at the outdated ‘arguments’ advanced. There is no reason why a priest has to be a man, except that has been your tradition. You are, of course, welcome to keep it if you can.

I simply compare what is happening here – which is an over supply of native vocations in my church, with what is happening in yours, where increasingly you depend on elderly clergy of imports from lesser developed parts of the world.

Time alone will tell whether we have been open to the promptngs of the Spirit and are therefore growing vocations at home, or whether you are right and it is the will of the Spirit that if you didn’t allow immigration in this area, you’d be very short indeed of priests. Time will tell.

Well its true that you do not believe that a priest has an indellible mark on his soul and that he acts in personna Christi. So what else is new. You reject the Catholic Church and Her teachings. That you have many ‘vocations’ of married men, women and homosexual activists, is not a win for you. You haven’t a valid priesthood and therefore it doesn’t matter in the least.

I don’t hate Catholics – why the immediate resort to hyperbole. It is quite possible to dissent from some of your churchy’s current teaching an not hate it. But when your own Cardinals do you imply they are not real Catholics. I suppose you are ignoring what your own Pope has said about Catholics who say such things?

You dissent from everything that does not coincide with your Anglican church. This occured when you found yourself staring at the reality that if you became Catholic yourself you would have to submit to an annulment. This seemed to send you into a rage and you have not looked back. You have a deep seated anger against the Church. Hope you get over it someday and get back on the right track.

I am not cross, I am at war with modernists who have as their objective the destruction of the Catholic Church. If you knew that this was the One Church Christ founded you would join the fight instead of egging on those who wittingly or unwittingly oppose Christ’s Church. Since you are taking up their banner then I am also at war with you. It has nothing to do with anger . . . frustration in endlessly telling you the same things and have you come back and put forward you same argument that was already answered, yes, it is tiring and frustrating beyond belief.

You have erected this mare’s nest and declared war on it. The idea that your chuch is full of people who really want to destroy it is a conspiracy theorist’s vision. I am sure that those Copts who dissented from leo’s Tome thought he was a dreadful purveyor of novelty – indeed I know that is what they thought – which is why they were early sedevacantists.

If I thought only one Church which added to the Creed and other novelties was the only Church, I’d wonder why it needed to change the Creed and why it had proved such a divisive force that millions of faithful Christians dissented from such a narrow view.

You have not shown, for example, in what particular the rite for women deacons meant they were ordained in a lesser way than male ones – you sikmply assert it is so because you say so. That is the mark of a very weak argument, which is not improved by your repeating it. Tell me in what particulars the different wording implies a lesser type of ordination.

What has been frustrating is your long insistence that Nicaea trumped Chalcedon which was 150 years later.

I understand you are frightened of people in your own church – but your own Pope has sensible things to say about Catholics who think they are ‘at war’ with other Catholics. You seem not be listening because his words don’t align with your views – what then of obedience?

If I criticised my leaders as much as you do, and said so many things about my fellow Anglicans that effectively said they weren’t real Anglicans, I’d wonder how it came about that I was so much wiser and better informed than all these other people, including my archbishops.

Here you go with your conspiracy theorist stuff again. If you want to stop a conversation mention conspiracy theory. I suppose satan no longer conspires to destroy the Church. She is safer now than ever before as satan has let up on his attacks. The DN’s in this world do not frighten me . . . in fact it is they who are frigtened and have no love in them. If you want you can learn about how satan can escalate his wrath without and within the church without need of conspiracies. Enjoy:

What public scandal. The synod was about 55/45 or thereabouts on a grave, settled issue of morality. So you think both are right and there is no division. I might not be smart but I know that both are not right and I’ll go with the ancient teachings of the Church and I will be suspicious of those who don’t.

You will, in the end, either go with the direction your church has embarked on, or you won’t. Time alone will tell Change is constant, your church has, in the past, decided some things it held it no longer needed to hold. Perhaps one day the attitude you evince to women deacons will be regarded as an archaeological curiosity?

I’ve a piece on this coming up tomorrow, so don’t want to anticipate its argument too much. But it seems (as I hope to show) that Paul allows certain types of teaching from women and not others. The distinction, which I say more on tomorrow, is critical, because it firmly establishes what Deacons and Elders can do. Deacons, male and female, are servants, so are elders, and no Christian should regard that title as anything save an honourable one.

Naturally, if one believes in a consecrated priesthood, certain things follow, but there’s no great reason not to regard some of those things as culturally conditioned – including the idea of a priesthood needing to be consecrated. However, if one holds that line, then it seems that what follows is that women can be deacons but not priests – which, strange to say, is where I come out on the issue of women as elders.

Geoffrey, you might want to review the two articles I linked to in my first comment. The information there is all I really need and it also shows a different use of Deacons and Deaconesses. They were not equivalent positions though they shared the same word which meant servant. The men were ordained to certain tasks and the women were not . . . they were given a sacramental blessing and that is all.

Both were ordained – or are you reduced to the 1 Peter 5 argument which is that ‘deacons’ doesn’t mean ‘deacons’ and ‘ordination’ doesn’t mean ‘ordinations’? Yet you insist ‘men’ means m
‘men’ – perhaps the argument that words mean what you want them to mean only works when they mean what you want them to mean??

And where has their use . . . than the ones mentioned develop? It doesn’t. In fact when the need ceased, they ceased.

Take your arguments to the Commission that studied this for years. I accept their conclusion as I knew you wouldn’t. But then, you are not Catholic, you believe in women priestesses as well as deaconesses (which you would ordain and have read and preach the Gospels). But thankfully, you do not have a voice in the RCC and in fact neither do I other than being part of the sensus fidelis of the Church.

You calimed they were not ordained. I did that bad thing I was taught to do, use evidence rather than argue from someone else’s authority.

Again, I have no idea why you immediately leapt to the priest argument – except that I knew you all would.

All I did was to show that both the pieces you linked to were fatally flawed. This is how I was taught in the robust Anglican tradition – use evidence. If you can’t respond except to say you don’t agree, fine, but it would be more impressive if you had an actual argument that amounted to more than you don’t like my facts.

Whether they called it ordination in the day is not the issue. It meant something different quite obviously. Nicea straigtened it out. Both pieces were fatally flawed to you, a non Catholic critic of the Catholic Church and a banner waver for all things feminist. It is not good enough. When the Church actually decides again what it has already decided then you have my permission to claim victory.

Yes the Anglicans and their evidence: worked well with contraception, divorce, women priests and homosexuals which are on the verge of getting their marriages blessed and eventually sanctifiec in the Anglican Church. Good point.

Since the form of words in the Eulogium is the same, I am not sure how it is ‘obvious’ that at that time they meant different things. What is ‘obvious’ is the words being the same and the invocation of the Holy Spirit in both cases.

If Nicaea sorted it out, you have a job of explaining away Chalcedon (125 years later) and the Eulogium, about 300 years later.

Quite why citing facts you refuse to address makes me a feminist, and quite why an ad fem argument is to be preferred to a real argument on the fact, I leave to you and those others here ignoring the facts.

Again, too broad a sweep. Here we have a triple lock against gay marriage in the Church and that is enshrined in law. So no, we are not on the verge of homosexuals being married in the Church. That’s my problem, I keep myself well informed from a variety of sources.

And yes, with Catholic dioceses here closing parishes, and the Anglicans opening them, I’m pretty relaxed about the status of our two churches. What are you going to do when the third world ceases to provide you with celibate male priests? Here there is a huge crisis – which is why parishes are closing right left and centre.

After not playing ball with the Caffeteria Catholics, we will have plenty of Real Catholics and a proper number of priests to attend to them all. It is this loosey-goosey church that is losing adherents to the faith. The Faithful have been relegated to the margins. Is that so odd . . . was Athanasius without hope? It is a return to the Faith of our fathers that will restore the Church not the pandering of the Church to the world which you seem to favor.

I did trust them and after 5 years of study accept their findings. You keep bringing up women priestesses not me. You want a particular end to verify your statement and then you create that end yourself. I never brought it up in this concern.

I’ve read it – and a sadder collection of biased evidence and omitted evidence it would be hard to find. Honestly, a graduate student in the history of the early church could do a better job. 42,000 words and no mention of evidence that even I can find. It reads like a report by Sanders democrats on Sander’s economic policies.

Confirmation bias can make a fool of anyone. The reason that report will not stand is it is a shoddy piece of reasoning backward. It knew what it wanted to say and selected the evidence accordingly. I’d give it gamma minus and advise it to do some real research and hire some experts in the field who didn’t already know what they were looking to find.

Well thank you. I am sure the theologians and historians of the Catholic Church will take your superior knowledge on this matter into serious consideration. You can do whatever you want and it makes no difference. The Church will decide as She always does. Its Commissions have weight whether you recognize their ‘intelligence’ or not. You do seem to have an arrogance that is only matched by your vicious contempt for the Holy Catholic Church.

I’m pretty sure that any new commission which starts with a desire to find out what the early church did will come to pretty much my conclusion – how do I know, because that’s precisely what happened in the Anglican Church – which like your own, had long just used tradition to reject the argument- without actually doing serious spadework. When that was done, minds were changed.

So no, not arrogance, smply a wider experienc of what other churches have already done here – it’s called knowing stuff and was why I got myself a good university education – and as for contempt, I have disdain only for those who resort to ‘authority’ as an excuse for not engaging in reasoned argument

You call that an analogy? Why would what the Anglican Church decided to do carry any weight? Only because for you the Anglican Church is right. Of course you would say that. But Catholics do not think the Anglican Church is right in many things and this woud simply be another. The Anglican Church is not the yardstick for the Catholic Church or for any other Christian Church that might exist. It only speaks for itself and is only as good as one’s attachment to it.

You may be right. it may be a very bad one. My own church worked with reputable scholars from across the ecclesiastical spectrum (and outside it) to examine the historical evidence. Perhaps that would be a bridge too far for the RCC? I’d be sorry to think it was a bad analogy and that the RCC couldn’t do the same.

Again, why the sark? I am simply saying that there are ways of going into these things – one is based on a tradition of robust intellectual enquiry, one of based on a tradition of banned books and suppression of opinion. I know which one is more likely to get to the truth – and I know which is not afraid of truth because there is nothing in our faith which needs books suppressing or theologians banning.

So yes, on this, I am proud of my church’s traditions of robust intellectual enquiry. Can you say the same?

The snark is your viciousness towards the Church and Her Commissions. You have decided what is intellectuall inquiry according to you. You have decided that your Church is the one that makes all the good decisions (like divorce and contraception and women priestesses). But the mean old Catholic Church keeps doing things the same old fashioned way before the great enlightenment of our day. We’re just a bunch of backward hillbillies that don’t have a clue. Your opinion counts only to you, I’m afraid.

There was no viciousness. Goodness me you have become as sensitive as a liberal university student if you think me vicious. I have not once resorted to ad homs – you have consistently resorted to saying I am a feminist and politically correct. I don’t mind, my tradition takes this all in good part.

What have you got against hillbillies? Hil and Bill, now that I could see 🙂 xx

You have yourself told me that you consider yourself a feminist and you verify that you agree with most of their agendas when it comes to matters within the Church. As to politically correct, you are the one that wants to throw ad hominems at me because I will not use your altered PC language. I like hillbillies . . . I live in a state that is full of them. 🙂

For me, being a feminist is simply to assert that women have the rights that men have. I have never said that I agree with female ordination. I do, however, think that if the early church had male and female deacons, the modern church can have them, and since we no longer believe in segregating women, they can do anything a male deacon can do.

It won’t. She may may falter here and there but the Teachings and Traditions will go on . . . even if it becomes a remnant Church as BXVI spoke. That day may not be far off from the looks of things in this upside down world where good is bad and up is down and men are women and women are men. 🙂

Yes, you seem to think you have to be in persona Christi to read the Gospel – an idea which is extant only in your church which remains the only one stuck in the Middle Ages.

Still, as I say, if your ideas on immigration were applied to priests, how long do you think your Church would have enough priests?

I don’t think we’re getting anywhere – you seem intent on staying in the nineteenth century, and we both know that’s not possible. The church you read yourself into was already reforming itself when you became a member. You don’t like the direction, but frankly, it is still evolving – and that may be behind your defensiveness and distrust of your own hierarchy.

At Mass dear, at Mass. You can read the Gospel all you want in some meeting you go to.

Yes, I am intent on staying in the Catholic Church and not abandoning Her to these modernist notions that you and others put forth. And yes, the modernists look to be winning at present but so did Arias . . . look where that ended.

There is no reason, other than a mad made tradition that women cannot read the Gospel. Still, as is clear from your hysteria over the fact there were women deacons, you are frightened of women priests. Why? If you are right they won’t happen, so why not chill?

I have no hysteria, that is what you exhibit over and over again. In fact it is a normal trait of yours.

I did not start the wringing of hands over this issue. I told you from the beginning that the Church studied the issue and found it to be a bogus one. I simply agree. So where is my hysteria in accepting the findings of their 5 year study? I think you seem to like to project your own feelings to others . . . a gaslighting technique you picked up somewhere perhaps?

Let us test this assertion. I make a reasoned argument that there were women deacons in the early church. You first, incorrectly, claim they were deaconesses, and that they were not ordained. I show you from external sources that both statements were incorrect. You then confuse the issue by claiming that ordination to do different things amounts to male deacons being ordained and female one not being.

I do not dispute that in the early church, given the widespread view that women were inferior to men, they were given different duties. You then say that as we don’t need those special duties because men can now do them, we don’t need women deacons. I say that women can do all that male deacons do. You say they are not necessary, and can’t read the Gospel because only men can do that. You then go on about Modernism and people wanting to destroy your church – on the theme of women deacons.

I leave it to others to decide which of these responses best deserve to be called hysterical.

You’ve made no reasoned argument. You are upset that I accept my Church’s commission on the subject carte blanche. You then come up with some little ‘proof’ that I am sure the Commission examined in their 5 years. You argue that we should have Deaconesses as it would be good to do so and that they can do what a Male Deacon can do. I only reply that the Commission says no they cannot. So what is your claim that I am having a nutty on ordination. Your premise itself requires, in the RCC, that she have the Rite of Orders which would allow her to do this . . . so then you are upset that I am talking about priestesses . Simply put, neither is going to happen . . . I’m just trying to get you to understand that. Don’t believe it . . . then don’t. Does it matter to you? Obviously, but why? Does it concert me in the least? No, as I am not surprised at anything that the feminists will try to take over if they can . . . including the sanctuary. I accept it and and I know that there will be the Cardinals that will divide over the issue and argue but in the end it will come to nothing. That is my prediction and my belief, like it or not.

Since Rome has managed to develop its system of orders several times across two thousand years, it seems odd that it could do so no longer? Perhaps the Spirit has finished His work? In short, this isn’t an argument, it’s the knee jerking. Quite why could the church not have orders which allowed women deacons? Clearly your Pope does not share your view that the Commission provided the definitive verdict, so why be so cross that I share his view? Perhaps because you fear he will do what you assert cannot be done?

If you really are unaware that most of those who talk about priestesses do so to be rude and to raise images of pagan practices, I’d be a bit surprised, but accept it. But having been told it is considered rude, you continue, who can say why?

Feminist – a woman who has an argument with a man and doesn’t accept his assertions. On that, yes, I’m a feminist.

Of course, there are some women, as there are men, who want women priests, and it seems the vigour of your argument is really aimed at them.

Yes the Church responds to needs. They are no longer needed. Your personal opinion that using correct English is rude is simply that. I do not feel the need to torture the language to accommodate others. You have no idea what Pope Francis is going to do . . . he made some off-hand comments that makes it look as though he would consider a Commission. That is not a done deal by a long shot. Not my assertions that are important here and I don’t care if you accept them or not. I am simply in the Camp of the Church and you are not happy that I will not come around to your view. You will not change, nor will I. So what is the difference really. I’m that Catholic here. You are not. What do expect me to do . . . join with the dissidents of the Church to push their agendas? Don’t you have your own battles to fight in the CofE rather than attack from the outside an internal question of the RCC? Seems all too strange to me.

Francis hasn’t made a decision so if you think you are in the Francis camp . . . you alone seem to think you know what that camp is.

Francis is Catholic . . . but you aren’t and thereby your opinion would be like be writing tomes about all I find wrong in the Anglican Church. Some of these come out from time to time but you seem dead set in taking an active ‘persuasive’ role in how we got it wrong and how your opinion of this will set all things right. It is simply a sidebar to more important issues facing the Church.

Since your views on my church are usually wrong – this weird view you have that it is going to be forced to sanction gay marriage, when the law specifically exempts it, for example – I’m sure it would be fun to see how many other mistakes you made writing about it.

You can have all your personal thoughts on what a good idea is and isn’t at this point. Nobody is going to stop you but it is an internal affair where your voice is irrelevant at best.

I only see how they accomodate their other members such the Episcopal Church in the US and think that in time the infection will spread. That is my outsiders view and it is about as worthless as yours are on the Catholic Church.

Uneducated Catholics abound as is obvious. They are swayed by the world and not disavowed by many in the clergy. And when they are . . . many do not believe them anymore. They are totally secularized Catholics. We don’t care if Anglicans agree with us . . . though with the influx of Anglicans into our Church at present that seems counter to what we see here on the ground in the US.

We can play what-ifs all day long. I am more pragmatic than that. We may get a disastrous Pope in the future or a saint that draws us all together. I like to think that the latter is eventually going to occupy the chair of Peter.

Of course, older Anglicans, or those who wish to hide from the modern world and pretend it doesn’t exist, will go where they think they can find a safe space. They will find, as QV has, that many in their new church don’t want to hide from the modern world and will become disgruntled.

I can’t understand all this pessimism and negativity. There’s nothing negative about loving Jesus.

You seem to have so much negativity going on – to the Pope, to some of your fellow Catholics, to Democrats, to almost anyone who can’t sign up to your beliefs – what ever happened to live and let live?

There is nothing negative ever is speaking the Truth. That Pope Francis has introduced confusion is not a private idea that I hold all by myself. The Synod should have proved that fact to you.

To Democrats who are quite aligned to the horrors of socialism, denounced by the church, is simple enough. Nobody has to sign up to my beliefs because I don’t create the beliefs. I hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ, the Mystical Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ and nothing else. Live and let live is indifference which is worse that hatred and the very opposite of love of neighbor and the Christian desire for the salvation of every soul. Sorry you think that you can live under a truce with satan, his lies and all the evil that he spreads to rob souls of the end for which Christ desires. I am at war and you have created a false peace with the enemy.

And there are many Catholics who also believe in your Church who profoundly disagree with you. Are you saying they are all bad Catholics?

Again, they hyperbole – did you never hear there was more than one way of skinning a cat? You begin with the most negative assumptions about those who think differently and end up agreeing with those assumptions – this is a circular process.

Please tell me how you can accept evil to reach a good end. Ever hear the Catholic axiom that it is immoral to use immoral means to a moral end? It is inherently counter intuitive to think that this is the narrow path that we are supposed to follow.

If they accept contraception, divorce, same sex marriage et al then they have disregarded the Church’s teachings and warnings. And obviously you have decided that these folks are right and only because in your Church it is seen fine and dandy. Our Church still has these teachings: if they do not agree then why are the still insistent on calling themselves Catholic when they disagree with teachings which are serious sin and can cost a man or woman their immortal souls?

No, I am telling you how the early Church, which canonised it, read it. You keep saying that 325 sorted out something and don’t deal with Chalcedon or the Eulogium, which are both much later; so clearly you are incorrect, Nocae cannot have ‘sorted it out’.

In the eyes of Rome it has not been a problem since . . . until this present day . . . and even now there will be nothing that will overturn it. Paul VI (loved by the liberals) was clear on this as well.

As I say, this isn’t an argument about women priests from me. I think on the deacon front you are on a loser, and your church will eventually return to the tradition of your remoter forefathers. Is there some statute of limitations of tradition at work here? 🙂

No statute of limitations on anything except that which is no longer needed. Now that women do not undress to get Baptized and priests can visit the homes of women without being accompanied by another woman then the need is over.

Not in the way people speak of ordination today they weren’t. As to a sacramental blessing and appointment like minor orders they were. But we no longer have a need. You want us to say that a Deaconess can read and preach a homily at Mass. Not so . . . never has been as far as history tells us.

How do you know that? Unless your church has changed the meaning of the word ordination, the fact that women were ordained deacons by the invocation of the HolY Spirit means they were ordained.

You’d need to show that the early church held to a more modern account of minor orders – which only became defined as such in the Middle Ages. As so often, your church changed things in the Middle Ages, and you are left looking embarrassed now people can read things for themselves and point it out. I can see why your church wanted to suppress books – dangerous things, give people the evidence to point out where clerical authority is making it up.

What would you say was the intention of this prayer said by the bishop with hands on the woman at ordination:

“Lord, Master, you do not reject women who dedicate themselves to you and who are willing, in a becoming way, to serve your Holy House, but admit them to the order of your ministers [λειτουργων]. Grant the gift of your Holy Spirit also to this your maid servant who wants to dedicate herself to you, and fulfil in her the grace of the diaconate [διακονιας], as you have granted to Phoebe the grace of your diaconate [διακονιας], whom you had called to the work of the ministry [λειτουργιας]. Give her, Lord, that she may persevere without guilt in your Holy Temple, that she may carefully guard her behaviour, especially her modesty and temperance. Moreover, make your maid servant perfect, so that, when she will stand before the judgement seat of your Christ, she may obtain the worthy fruit of her excellent conduct, through the mercy and humanity of your Only Son.”

Yes an invocation that Holy Spirit keeps her from sin and that she gaurds her modesty and comes to the end that she was meant; salvation. That her ministry was to other women is the intention that we understand by an absence, if nothing else, of any other instance where these women were preaching in Mass or doing anything other than what is proper for even the laity: administering the sacrament of baptism. But in this instance it is allowed, by this ‘diaconate’ position, to be done with full knowledge of the Church for the sake of modesty.

If we look at the duties, we can see that as well as the ones you, correctly, cite, there are others, which are not solely to women.

So, this from the Apostolic Constitutions:
“Let the deacons be in all things unspotted, as the bishop himself is to be, only more active; in number according to the largeness of the Church, that they may minister to the infirm as workmen that are not ashamed. And let the deaconess be diligent in taking care of the women; but both of them ready to carry messages, to travel about, to minister, and to serve, as spake Isaiah concerning the Lord, saying: “To justify the righteous, who serves many faithfully.” Let every one therefore know his proper place, and discharge it diligently with one consent, with one mind, as knowing the reward of their ministration; but let them not be ashamed to minister to those that are in want, as even our” Lord Jesus Christ came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give His life a ransom for many.” Apostolic Constitutions 3, no 19.

We know so little of the detail, that it would be brave person who could state categorically that this diaconate was confined solely to women.

Because to do what a deacon does is to place a woman where she does not belong . . . in the sanctuary which should be reserved those who are actively involved in the Rite of the Liturgy. She cannot be. As to the things deaconesses were allowed to do? They can still do those things . . . and they do. Many work in Catholic Hospitals, carry communion to the sick and visit the sick etc. Nothing prevents them and there is nothing wrong with giving them a blessing to do this with the help and aid of the Holy Spirit. But they are not the helpmates of the Priest during Mass.

Says who? Back then things were done in a way which, as you have to admit, discriminated against women, so we were kept to women’s work – now we would admit that women can do quite a lot of things they used not to – why not this? Musogyny apart of course?

I do not admit that the Church ever discriminated against women. It was ordered. Men had their roles as women had theirs. Modern times could learn alot about the wisdom of that if it weren’t so fallen from grace that it can no longer discern such things.

As we’ve seen, it was no such thing. WOmen took a larger role in the Church in the early days than they did in the Middle Ages. So what happened, did women suddenly regress or was there discrimination. You not admitting what is pretty obvious does not make it so, it simply means you won’t face facts – but they remain facts.

In a Church that depended on house churches for its survival and with enemies all about it seems that everyone worked dilegently to keep the Church alive. That is still true among the faithful. Some today, however, think that they are not participating unless they get to do everything a man does. Sorry life is not like that . . . or shouldn’t be . . . and neither is the Church. We have our roles.

Yes, there are some who think like that, just as there are some with a visceral dislike of the idea of women deacons – but unlike you, I don’t go round suggesting that everyone on your side of the argument is acting from the worst of motives.

It may well be that women suffer delusions when the feel the Spirit calling them. It may equally be that men suffer delusions when they imagine that He is not calling women. Time will tell.

The Church didn’t allocate them: these women created these vocations long, long ago and the Church gave them their blessing and treat them as that which is very dear to our tradition (barring the new modernist nuns on a bus crowd that you support).

What new vocation: worshipping gaia, Sophia and the rest of their incipid agenda. No thanks. I’ll stick to the regular traditional orders of nuns who still wear their habits and believe in the teachings of the Church.

Again, I fail to see why you need to resort to hyperbole. Why can’t you even conceive the idea that a woman might have a vocation to be a deacon or a priest. I know no woman in my church who wants to worship gaia – if you have them in your church, I’d wonder why?

Hyperbole? They’ve done far crazier things than this. It is as impossible for a woman to have a vocation to be a female deacon or female priest as it for a woman to impregnate a man with child. Glad that you have no crazy nuns in your midsts . . . but then you wouldn’t notice because their theology is accepted as mainstream now.

I think if you broaden your mind you might begin to see why this, too is hyperbole. It does not matter what you do, you can never give birth – that is what nature says. I could quite easily read the Gospel – it is simply a man-made rule that says I can’t. Of course you will claim it is not, but then you can’t actually point to any reason other than your own church’s theory.

Again, all I can say is I am very happy with my church and my leaders – you seem not to be so.

I know for a fact the ancestors of the Copts thought the Chalcedonian definition an abuse. That’s the problem with an unthinking adherence to tradition, you fail to listen to the arguments, even when they turn out to be the promptings of the Spirit.

Vatican 2 opened the windows and let in some fresh air – you seem to wish to close them and live in a fug – your Pope won’t let you, and you complain.

There you go again. Any Catholic priest/bishop who disagrees with you gets the ad hom treatment. No venom, nor vitriol? Really, you really think you sound like a caring Christian when you say things like this? Why the personal bitterness? Is it really seemly?

Go back and read Gareth Thomas’s post about the incident or go online. Seems we all thought Rosica was an ogre at the time. Our Nick Donelley wrote about it and sent a letter to Athanasius Schneider. You and your spittle flecked nutties! I speak of one that this entire blog was against at the time including the Protestants.

Is Cardinals Kasper and Marx Catholic? I think it is debatable. When nearly 1/2 the recent synod was in direct opposition . . . somebody is putting forth Catholic Teaching and the other isn’t. You think that because you hold office gives you license to teach that which is not true or Catholic in principle?

Last time I looked they were. Still, I guess B16 who appointed them knew less than you about what made a Catholic? I think you will find that if you hold a license to teach and no one in authority withdraws it, that makes you a Catholic teacher. You seem very uncomfortable with Catholic thinkers exploring new ideas – what’s the point n having thinkers if they are not allowed to think? Parrots would be cheaper.

Ah, so it is not your Popes who appoint non Catholics, it is the noCatholic bishops they appointed who recommend non Catholic Cardinals. Is there some point at which there are actual Catholics as defined by you involved in this process.

You do need to read a few orthodox Catholics for a change and understand that there has been a divide between orthodox and unorthodox which actually began quietly under the radar far before the VII Council. Since then this divide is quite open . . . that you side with the modernists is not surprise really.

Again, you seem to need to indulge in labelling rather than reasoned argument. To dissent from some traditional teaching is not to be a modernist- it is not to be a parrot and is to have a brain. It is even to be open to reasoned argument from the other side – it would be good to hear it. I can see that snce Francis became Pope and it was no longer enough to assume that the CDF would shut up those who thought otherwise it has made life uncomfortable – but if you want to be comfortable, perhaps being a Christian is not the place to look to?

O yes, a brain that says that two men or two women can have a marriage. That a woman can truly be in personna Christi and magically be apostolic . . . of course, sincce that is something you do not have it will pass you by. Dissent from accepted tradition and teaching is called disobedience. I already guessed that obedience to your appointed superiors is something you disdain; which is what places you in the company of apostates. Christ founded a Church and gave the ability of priesthood to the male elite of his little band of Christians; the apostles. Sorry . . . no women there. As you are won’t to say; show me in the Bible where there was a woman apostle present . . . then show me in the Bible where they ordained a woman. Not in the Bible? Well why are you seeking to do what is so unbiblical then? You’re the one that is ‘telling’ me what I feel. I am not uncomfortable . . . you certainly are . . . and desire novelty and change. I am quite comfortable, saddened at the lack of faith exhibited and the poor catechesis and the present level of the episcopate in our day. It was like this when I joined and it is only getting a bit more confused under Pope Francis. I am quite comfortable with my Christianity, thank you. Seems that women like to jump to all sorts of hysterical conclusions when they are confronted. Sorry about that . . . but this last remark is simply lunacy.

Really, I missed the point I said that. What I did say was a simple fact, which is that in the eyes of the State that is possible.

It is you who keeps stating what I keep pointing out is untrue – namely that my church is somehow obliged to marry men to men – I have several times pointed out that the law of the land specifically provides for that not to happen.

I have also pointed out the contingent nature of what you call ‘tradition’. There were no doubt conservative traditionalists who thought it a dreadful break from tradition when reception on the tongue was introduced, as there no doubt were when women deacons were discontinued – but you know, somehow the sky failed to fall in, and what were once novelties are now treated by you are though they never were.

I have pointed out where Phoebe was a deacon, and where the church allowed the ordination of women deacons – unless, of course, as you deny, you are again talking about women priests – or should that by ‘womyn priestesses’ to be properly politically incorrect?

Change is ever with us, and if you think ut can be stopped, the entire story of the history of the church is on the other side. Of course, if you take one period, romanticise it as a golden age, and imagine fondly its norms were always there, you get a fantasy of what you liked – but not of the church as it has been on its long journey through history.

You seem very attached to what you read yourself into, but not so attached to the reality. That is the problem with theorising from books I suppose.

Because the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded and has such authority. I accept authority and I accept my role as being obedient to that authority as long as it does not involve corruption of faith or morals: in which case the authority can be ignored.

What vitriol? Every Catholic that has followed the division into ‘camps’ would have to be daft or blind that there are those who are diametrically opposed to one another. I know into which camp I fall and am comfortable with that. Do I regard Kasper and crew Catholics; in the widest sense yes, in a narrow sense no.

I have all the help I need in Scripture, the Church’s Doctrines on Faith and Morals, the brave Bishops who have fought on against mounting odds of secularized laity and clergy. i feel in fine company thank you and I certainly agree that there is nothing that you can do to ‘help’ me; in fact, what you could do would lead me to aid and abet the slide from constant Church Teaching. So thanks, but no thanks.

ah, so Aquinas thinking women were misbegotten males was an example of his superior wisdom? Or, as one would now think, an example of the limitations of that era’s knowledge? If the latter, why assume its other attitudes to women have validity now?

I doubt you even understood what Aquinas was saying. Did you forget the second part of his answer to objection 1?

2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.

I not ponly understand it, I know it comes from a medieval theory that held that women were simply fields in which men planted their seed. Aquinas had no idea about the ovum and the part women really play in conception. But if you wish to base your views on outdated medieval theories of the body, feel free – but don’t wonder why no one other than those who agree thinks it is a serious way of considering the position of women.

You must have heard this from your latest meeting with the priestesses. He was concerned with the principles of the active and the receptive. The Word needs an Ear to hear or else it is useless. A man needs a wife or else he is childless. It was right that God made man first as it is a reflection of His order. He (as the masculine father) sends out His Word and the Church (comprised of our feminine and receptive souls) provides the answer: the yes that Mary gave. The 2 become one.

He was so ignorant that he did not imagine women contributed to the make up of the baby – but all of this is readily available to anyone familiar with the literature and not in denial about the long history of discrimination against women. If you are seriously contending that the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages was the only organisation that did not discriminate against women, you’ve a great best-seller on your hands if you can prove it. 🙂

There you go again Bosco. Do you really suppose that the proper response of a follower of Christ to a fire is to find some petrol to add to the flames.

I’ve a post up later reflecting on recent events. I doubt you, or anyone else encouraging the flames will understand it. But it is the reflection of one who saw where this sort of bitterness can lead – those who have wisdom might learn something, those who don’t won’t.

Huh? I suppose I don’t understand the ‘purpose’ of the piece. Sounds like something the Catholic Church may be exploring, but will ultimately conclude what they already have done.

There were women “servants” of the early Church. A deacon in the Catholic Church is ordained a deacon–as Servus had said, “not participating in some form of holy orders.” Furthermore, Servus is right when he says, it’s merely a ploy for women priest, which St. John Paul II shut the door on.

On the whole I agree. But since all Christian churches wrestle with this one, it might not be a bad idea to share practice and theories as to why this is – which is a plug for my post post here tomorrow.

But that is simple enough, my friend. It is explained simply by the nature of the Catholic Mass. The Catholic Mass is a liturgical Rite that from start to finish is presided over by Christ via his minister who acts in personna Christi. As an alter Christus it is Christ who is preaching and it is Christ who is praying and asking for deliverance and forgiveness of our sins. Without this difference between the Mass and the church services of other denominations there, of course, is no problem for a woman to preside at what is nothing more than a Bible study, prayer and praise gathering that one witnesses on any given Sunday. Such does not require ordination nor does it require a man to do so. But the Catholic Mass is different. That is why, in liturgies that are not confined to the Mass, women religious or groups of women who have their own Bible studies etc. can certainly be more involved . . . just so long as this does not enter the arena of the Mass where Christ presides through His minister (the Priest . . . sometimes with his servant the Deacon) to carry out this function of our Lord Himself.

“As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 🙂

I recited scripture . . . you’re telling me how to read it and how the Church reads it. Please feel free to give me an official Church argument that makes your point. I’m open to it. All I know is that the RCC as recently as JPII has forbid such things and I doubt Francis has the ability to do anything about it unless it becomes an name for those who might carry the Eucarist to hospitals or councils women on women’s issues or whatever. An ordained deaconess is not in the works and I would take a bet before the folks at AATW that I will not lose for whatever sum you might have in mind.

Please reproduce my remard about arguing about women priests? I have spoken only about the Deaconesses problem . . . though I did say that your Anglican church did go far beyond in priestesses.

You got your responses . . . you only decided that they were not ‘decent’ responses in your mind. You are not the judge an jury. If anything, you are in the peanut gallery watching what the Church on the other side of the Tiber does with this issue.

If you were arguing about deacons, why keep referring to women and the priesthood?

The evidence is clear, women were ordained deacons. Nicaea settled nothing, and none of your responses actually dealt with any of my facts – you ignored them – why, I can’t say. That is not a decent response, it is a non-response.

No one uses the word ‘priestesses’ – except those who want to make snide references to pagan practice – and I’m surprised to see you among them.

You said they were not ordained – they were. I note that yet agan you have nothing to say on this subject. Why is having facts inconvenient to you a sign I am politcally correct and a raging feminist? It may simply be you are not well-read on this except in terms of arguments which suit you. Why must you continually resort to ad fem generalisations such as these? I stick to the intellectual arguments, you go off piste with ad fems. But then I don’t need to distract from a weak argument I guess.

As a protestant whose first pastor was a woman, I came to think of it as normal to have women in positions of leadership. She preached from the exact same Bible, teaching the exact same instructions as men usually do, I always thought that the Word of God would not return void (Isaiah 55:11) and was not so fragile that when women read it and spoke from it they would do it in an inferior, flawed, or deceived manner just because they were women.
My second denomination had a men-only leadership structure, women were like children, seen but not heard, or out of sight, out of mind. I couldn’t understand why my first pastor was such a competent teacher in her denomination and yet my new male pastor said that she was spitting in the face of God. Didn’t he give her the same spiritual gifts? Does he want her to bury her gift or to use it to strengthen the body?
Ultimately, I concluded that the Bible was written as a product of it’s time and place and it’s culture, it shows increasing freedoms for women, but I don’t think it wanted to stop there. Like with slavery, it put us on the path to end the institution, not to decide that because the Bible does not disapprove of slavery that must mean it must be permanent and unending. I think God wanted men and women to be more equal, just as masters and slaves were told to see themselves on the same level in the hopes that they would treat each other better and better until one day they were equals in every way.

Yep, I’ve had two, one high church Episcopalian, one Lutheran (our churches are in full communion). Both were fine, the Episcopalian a touch better to my mind. Probably because I’m pretty high on the candlestick for my church. 🙂 For all that, I’m still on the fence WRT clergy, but there has to be a place in leadership for women in any case. Whether we call it by a historic name, invent one, or something else, we will increase our effectiveness if we find a way.

I understand that there’s some teaching, the church being the bride of Christ, (male) Priests stand in as the ‘best man’ until it’s time for the bridegroom to take over … but I don’t understand why that metaphor is taken so literally while others, the one says that we’re all the body of Christ, the body has different parts, different gifts, that are to be used to build up and strengthen the body – it seems ineffective if the body ties one of it’s hand’s behind it’s back because they’re all women.

I have no answer for you, Jamie. But I’m sure they’ll be along to tell you all about it. I’m sympathetic to what they say, but not convinced. We simply must make use of our talents, if not in the clergy, then in another way.

My own church has abandoned the old arguments and women are making good vicars and doing well, No doubt when the RCC can’t rely on the third world to recruit celibate male priests, it will shift – or maybe e it will simply die out in many places?

It’s impossible for them to be good vicars. They do by preside over the table of the Lord, but the table of ash.

I surmise that may be your preference for the RCC to simply die out in places.

It grows tiresome the insistence on those outside the Church constantly writing and critiquing it.

I ask, Why are you never writing about where the Baptist get it wrong, the Lutherans, the Methodist. You spend post after post taking pot shots at the Catholic Church– and all of your Protestant buddies join in from the fray.

It’s been your tone since the incident with Q, when I defended you. It quite frankly sickens me.

Doesn’t that rather cut across your comment that on matters of ordination we leave it to the church concerned, and that you don’t comment on Anglicanism? Shome mishtake shurely?

I comment because it seems to me here that the arguments being used are so poor as to be intellectually disreputable. If you want to go all ‘generation snowflake’ on the RCC, fine, but that has not been what this place does – it puts forward arguments.

So, I linked to the Canons of Chalcedon about the ordination of women deacons, and to the Apostolic Constitutions. The 1 Peter 5 piece is surely a joke – ordination does not mean ordination? Really, well let’s take the Eucholgian of St Mark, text here:http://www.womendeacons.org/rite/deac_gr1.shtml

Or will the argument become ‘it wasn’t the same Holy Spirit’ because it was a woman. Really, even if I weren’t a woman, I’d be able to spot an intellectually rubbish argument at ten paces you know.

I see that, alas as predicted, the RCs here have all gone ape on women’s ordination – despite it not being what the post is about.

I’ve never commented until this particular moment. When your insistence on what the One and Only Church of Christ becomes nothing more than bent on some misguided personal vendetta. However, how could you feel like you could do any wrong when your Protestant buddies hold you up as an idol for adoration?

I criticize the Church as a Catholic when I feel it warrants it. However, I am a Catholic. I think that the theology of Anglicanism is bent, but I refrain on why because you must choose the grace of God.

Furthermore, as predicted? No doubt because your MO is just to criticize the Catholic Church. Anymore it’s the topics of your post and comments.

As far as I can see, only Neo is supporting me; Geoffrey is clearly on your side; so I am unsure what prompts your hyperbolic assertion?

I am as much a Catholic as you are, and I reject, as I have done always, any attempt by Rome to claim a monopoly.

My MO is simply to cite facts, which I agree is terribly unfair of me; perhaps you are right to withdraw to a safe space where you can become part of generation snowflake? For me, having been brought up in the robust Anglican tradition of evidence-based argument, I shall stay and do that unfair thing – cite facts not emote.

I think that change was always inevitable, as a society, we’re just finally really to view men and women as equally capable of the same tasks, who have the same level of education. I can see why it might have been written in the past that women shouldn’t lead, particularly if they’re ex-priestesses of Diana/Artemis and need to learn Jesus’ teachings, but today such a scenario is quite rare. Kids who go through youth group graduate with the same knowledge. Both should be allowed to share that knowledge freely and follow God in their hearts, even into positions of leadership.
I never understood why positions like vicar / cardinal / anything else not specifically mentioned in Scripture were written to be men-only anyway, if it’s not in the Bible then there should be a lot of flexibility.

“so I am unsure what prompts your hyperbolic assertion?” reread his comment, he stated it so a 6 year old could understand.

“I am as much a Catholic as you are” Your ancestors left the Catholic Church, so you have no claim.

“perhaps you are right to withdraw to a safe space where you can become part of generation snowflake?” And where was it you withdrew to about a month ago when you got all fuffy and said goodbye?

“For me, having been brought up in the robust Anglican tradition of evidence-based argument” The one of Henry VIII I presume. Newman stated it so well; to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

No, my ancestors renounced the domination of Rome, which, last time I looked, was not the sole owner of the title ‘Catholic’. If you’d be kind enough to show me where my ancestors said they were no long ‘Catholics’ I’ll concede your point. If not, I’ll await your correcting your misstatement.

You do know Newman was held in deep suspicion by the traddies of his own day – oh the irony!

“When your insistence on what the One and Only Church of Christ becomes nothing more than bent on some misguided personal vendetta”

Good sister, have you noticed how the Papist always, always say that their church is the One True Church Founded by Christ? Its like, if they say it enough, someone might believe it. These were simply hollow claims made by liar popes in hopes to discredit the eastern Orthodox Church. The claims kept getting wilder. Now, the Romanish Papists parrot that claim everytime they open their mouths. After seeing how their “church” has behaved and is behaving, reciting that claim keeps them from waking in the nite sceaming.

I Guess in their minds, being a member of the catholic religion is a good thing. You know, the truth is, god accepts you as you are. Its no crime being unsaved.But the unsaved have no excuse at judgment when they were warned repeatedly about trusting in false religions. Somehow they will know that and know they deserve their fate. But Jesus said that some will say that the did this and that in the Lords name. But yet they were iniquitous idolaters just the same.
I don’t think id be proud to be in a cult that exterminated 3 ethic groups of peoples…dashing babied heads against walls. And then go and bow befor an idol to thank it for a successful campaign. Man…have they backed the wrong horse.

Phoebe is called ‘deacon’, not deaconess. The link admits you can’t be sure. I suppose it comes down to what you feel the role was. It is fairly clear that they had defined roles needed by the society of the day – I can’t really believe that we have evolved to a place where we couldn’t find needs for them in our society?

On the ordination issue, that, of course is a matter for Rome. But it is interesting that even the Copts, not known for their progressive attitudes, now have deaconesses.

Unless they abolished the program, when Valpo was owned by the LCMS, they trained them there. Now, I guess I don’t know, since I’m in the ELCA, and only secondarily deal with LCMS, for all that my beliefs probably align there somewhat closer. That pretty much exhaust what I know about it, but if they abolished it, and they might have, I think it a mistake.

All I know is from observation, I have been to probably ten different LCMS churches with my wife all over the Midwest, and I have never seen one. Some of which are big parishes that are in the headquarters of St. Louis.

From what I have heard, the president Matthew Harrison? Is extremely conservative, so it might be he even did away with them.

Well, the comment of the day goes to—Philip Augustine. Very well done!

“It’s impossible for them to be good vicars. They do by preside over the table of the Lord, but the table of ash.

I surmise that may be your preference for the RCC to simply die out in places.

It grows tiresome the insistence on those outside the Church constantly writing and critiquing it.

I ask, Why are you never writing about where the Baptist get it wrong, the Lutherans, the Methodist. You spend post after post taking pot shots at the Catholic Church– and all of your Protestant buddies join in from the fray.

It’s been your tone since the incident with Q, when I defended you. It quite frankly sickens me.

I cited Chalcedon, I cited the Apostolic constitutions, and I cited the Eulogium of St Mark. I see that as usual, when evidence is used, you can’t cope. What a bunch of snowflakes you have turned into. Perhaps you need the safe space of your church so you can hide from arguments you can’t actually deal with.

I am shocked really. You are all very critical of the modern fashion for getting offended and running away – and when facts appear, instead of dealing with them, you turn tail and claim to be offended.

Next time any of you criticises the Left for this sort of behaviour, I shall be happy to remind you that when it suits you, you do just that.

Thank God I was brought up in an intellectual tradition robust enough to argue and to use evidence. If this is the best the RCC can do, it’s a pretty poor show.

Bovine scatology. Servus, in comment after comment tries to tell you something about the Catholic Church and in comment after comment you tell him that is not the case. It does not matter what the subject is, you object, and have been doing so for months. This is just one case where it is proven that you are not a Catholic, and have never been so. Henry VIII made a choice and you are living that choice.

If either of you could tell me why there is a rite of ordination for female deacons in the early church if they weren’t ordained, it would make a change.

I can see, as usual, you have no proof t back up your statement that my ancestors renounced Catholicism, and have to resort to repeating your untrue allegation. If this is what passes for apologetics with you Steve, it’s very unimpressive. If you still believe the old lie that it was all about Henry VIII, I’d offer you a reading list – except I doubt you’d read any of it – best stay in your safe space.

Who was it, oh yes Jesus, who stated he formed one church, not many. But your ancestors conveniently forgot that one. And who was it that gave license to that infamous Cranmer, to strip the altars, as Duffy would say, oh yes that would be Henry VIII. And who was it that thinking Sir Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher were scum of the earth, so much so that they should be forbidden from breathing the air, oh yes that would be Henry VIII.

The Catholic Church was that one church that Henry VIII broke away from and formed one that he was the head. Anglo-Catholic is a oxymoron. Renounce it today! You have no claim. You are a Protestant.

And whose ancestors profaned the Paschal feast by marching up to the altar in the Hagia Sophia an excommunicating the Eastern Orthodox? I doubt that a Church which has spent so much time expelling those who dare question its somewhat spurious claims to supremacy (Donation of Constantine ring any bells? Why would a church need to fake something like that if it really was confident of its claims?) is is a good position to preach on one Church.

I don’t remember anyone saying Fisher and More were scum of the earth? Is it compulsory to over egg the argument, or is this something you just need some help with?

As I say, all my life I have remained in the Church I was born in. If consistency is a crime, I’m guessing you can’t be found guilty.

Good sister (drum roll)….I hereby and forthwith uncommunicate you from the One True Holy Roman Catholic Church Pure and White immediate post haste ex post facto. Now get out and don’t come back, you heretic you.

Well, youre rite about the butch females. Those are the ones who want to be deacons. They want to do mens jobs. Heck, everyone knows the male clergy is a homosexual club….the females want to be the other branch of the club. One big homosexual club.

“Constituting an official commission that might study the question?” the pontiff asked aloud. “I believe yes. It would do good for the church to clarify this point. I am in agreement. I will speak to do something like this.”

Guess who? …yep, still breathing. This once forbidden discussion has bitten off more than a little bit of my reading time of recent, and I must confess, there is tangible evidence that a male-dominated world made it very difficult for what originally looked to include many more recognized women servants of the body of Christ than we like to admit.

One persuasion is to take a look at the Junia (Romans 16:7) considered “outstanding” and “in Christ before I was” that historically has been described as a mutilated text… to make Junia a man. There is clear evidence of Junia’s gender… so why the intentional effort to change it?

Good reading sources – “The Blue Parakeet” by Scot McKnight… Multiple works by Bruce Fleming… and “How I Changed My Mind About Women in Ministry”

7 Greet Androni′cus and Ju′nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. RSCVE

7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. KJV

7 Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Douay Rheims

The first utilizes all of the latest scholarship. Who is your unassailable expert who described the test as mutilated . . . to make Junia(s) a man? Seems kinsmen itself is masculine without the added ‘men’ that the RSCVE renders in this passage.

No sir, not the Bible, the interpreters of the original texts, who were always men. …and by the way, lived in an era when women were no more than possessions, such as cattle. Only fair to take all things in consideration.

Jesus, in the gospels, seems to have much higher regard for women and their ability to serve.

It is true, that Christ treated women with greater respect than what was common though religious Jews are and were very much a matriarchal society . . . the Jewish mother was given great love and respect.

In regards to the passage you cited, my commentary does not deny the controversy between scholars on the name as being male or female for various resons. Regardless, if the last two were married couple the use of the phrase ‘among the Apostles’ the following is said: ‘This can be understood to mean that 1) Andronicus and Junias were apostles in the broader sense of the word (messenger, Phil 2:25; 2 Cor 8:23), or that 2) they were esteemed by the original apostles.

I would say that the silence on Mary herself is my ideal of the woman par excellance. She was a woman wrapped in silence and is responsible for more conversions than any other woman. She did not preach, she did not reject her role of motherhood and she embraced that which was always in her heart. Her silence is deafening.

So, first you try the ‘is the Bible wrong’ line. When Mike shows that he is well aware of the arguments over this, you admit them? Can you provide a single example from antiquity of a man called Junias – if so, you will get a prize because no one else can.

I’m sorry, but this is why I don’t trust any RC on this one – the mindset is first denial, and when denial isn’t possible, obfuscation.

I think that it does raise interesting issue – which makes me wonder why Catholic men are the only people left peddling the notion it is really a man’s name? What are you all so scared of that there is this conspiracy to pretend that there were not female deacons and that if there were they didn’t count for much.

Orange and Laodocea were not ecumenical, Chalcedon was. I think when you have to resort to local councils you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. What puzzles me is why? You are acting as though you think the sky would fall in if you did what the Copts do. I think being behind the Egyptians in the way you treat women in terms of the diaconate is shameful.

The document backs up the claim in Chalcedon about a separate ordination rite for women. You can’t deal with this except to say ordination does not mean what it does now, but back then it didn’t mean it for deacons either. Men and women were ordained deacons in the same way. This does not fit your view so you deny it – fine, but it changes nothing – however much your church has fiddled with the record.

You do not know how to read. The parallel rites were different but you will not admit it. And the Deaconess was to minister to the sick and to the women. They already do this today through religious orders and there is no need for it anymore. End of story.

No, you simply said it was somehow different, you never said why it meant one ordination was proper and the other didn’t – *groan* You do know that you simply saying it is so is not an actual argument? You seem not to have an argument, just an assertion which you can’t substantiate – yawning is the last refuge of the conservative who has lost the argument – so do keep showing that.

You have the flimsiest of ‘proofs’ in this document. The ordination for the male deacon and the deaconess differ in breadth and scope. What bothers you is that the Church Commission surely had this same document and examined it and that I have agreed with their understanding of it and their final conclusion. That is all there is to it. You want to create a mountain from a measley, non-specific, culturally isolated document and make it the governing rule that overshadows all other evidence or lack thereof.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris